On May 25, 2026 3:27:18 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: >On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:25:19PM +0100, Josh Law wrote: >> On May 25, 2026 3:21:59 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <[email protected]> >wrote: >> >On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:11:49PM +0100, Josh Law wrote: >> >> On May 25, 2026 3:03:28 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Glass <[email protected]> >> >wrote: >> >> >Hi Tom, >> >> > >> >> >On Mon, 18 May 2026 at 09:58, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On 5/16/26 00:07, Tom Rini wrote: >> >> >> > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > Hi, >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > There was a query on the call this week about whether I am >> >doing >> >> >> > > > AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here is >a >> >> >brief >> >> >> > > > description of how it works. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new >> >'patman >> >> >> > > > review' command. You give it the series name / number, or >> >perhaps >> >> >a >> >> >> > > > patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new >branch, >> >does >> >> >a >> >> >> > > > review then adds its comments to its database. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail >(sorry, >> >it >> >> >> > > > doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check >and >> >> >update >> >> >> > > > the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an >expert >> >in >> >> >> > > > handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an >attempt >> >to >> >> >make >> >> >> > > > it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan >recent >> >> >> > > > reviews to actually create to create a voice. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded >> >> >considerably. >> >> >> > > > But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win for >me, >> >> >even >> >> >> > > > if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I >can >> >> >imagine >> >> >> > > > 10 different ways to improve it to be more useful. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or >you >> >can >> >> >ask me here. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > I am very interested in hearing how others are using these >new >> >> >tools >> >> >> > > > for code review. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > And the big thing for now is that since we as a project do not >> >yet >> >> >have >> >> >> > > an AI policy aside from "please don't". One of the points I >was >> >> >making >> >> >> > > on the call is that there's a difference in value between >"Human >> >> >> > > reviewed it, looks fine" and "Human spent some tokens, agent >> >didn't >> >> >see >> >> >> > > any problems". >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > And I know several other people have been doing at least first >> >pass >> >> >> > > reviews with various agent-tools, it's just no one else has >been >> >> >posting >> >> >> > > reviews at your scale. And lessons learned from other projects >is >> >> >that >> >> >> > > the prompts are more important than whatever wrapper around >the >> >> >agent >> >> >> > > one is using. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Don't think scale is the problem. Tool and integration is >another >> >> >topic. >> >> >> >> >> >> Simon posted approximately 100 reviews in about 24 hours. That >scale >> >is >> >> >> a problem, when most of them are just reviewed-by tags, from >someone >> >> >> that has a history of doing human reviews. Reputation is a factor >> >here >> >> >> I'm trying to figure out how best to articulate. >> >> >> >> >> >> I have thoughts on the rest that I want to get back to later, >thanks. >> >> > >> >> >I should point out that I tend to do reviews locally bit by bit and >> >> >then recheck and send out in batches later, particularly when I need >> >> >to dig into the code and check things. I suspect a lot of the >> >> >'reviewed-by' ones are on revised series where I already reviewed >v1, >> >> >etc. For better or worse, patman tends to have something to say on >> >> >most patches (too picky for my style so I often delete comments). >> >> > >> >> >Re the AI policy, I suggest adding it in the project docs (even if >it >> >> >is very brief), rather than referencing a URL from another project. >> >> > >> >> >Regards, >> >> >Simon >> >> > >> >> >> >> Hey guys, sorry for the unexpected email but I have a question >> >> >> >> How would you know the reviewed by tag wasn't just made by a AI >> >> >> >> Would like: "Here is the tag from soandso AI" >> >> >> >> Or would it be like >> >> >> >> "AI reviewed this and it looks fine" >> >> >> >> Apologies for the unexpectedness of the email :) >> > >> >That's one of my concerns, yes. And I've been a bit shocked that other, >> >bigger, projects that do allow for AI review haven't come up with >> >something already. >> > >> > >> >> Personally Tom, projects like Linux take it slightly different >> >> maintainers usually say: >> "AI asked a question" then link the sashiko (AI review tool) link, with >> all of AIs comments >> >> The general gist, is if there is any comments, you either fix it, or you >> say why it isn't a bug >> >> I have mixed opinions on sashiko tbh. >> >> Also, maintainers tend to use their **OWN** review tools. >> >> But most projects do generally ban AI anything. >> >> Idk what we could do for u-boot when it comes to a sashiko like >solution. >> >> Maybe we could talk about it? > >Proposing a policy for the project about AI (and indeed not just linking >to other projects which have what I find to be helpful references) is on >the TODO list for the project leadership committee. We've just been >busily handling other issues for a while now, unfortunately. > >
I could put something into suggestion: So, for patches: you could do assisted bys, and it depends on the maintainer, etc etc like Linux, And for reviews: that's actually hard to think about, because some maintainers love using AI review tools because it's useful, others don't particularly like tools like that, maybe a opt-in "reviewman"? But tbh that's up for discussion. Thanks!
